The entire six points are:
- Married 6 year old
- Slave owner & dealer
- Rapist
- Beheaded 600 Jews in one day
- 13 wives, 11 at one time
- Tortured and killed unbelievers
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Monday, June 12, 2017
Muhammad billboard
Muslims 'outraged' by billboard that insults prophet Mohammed -- "Underneath are six bullet points to describe that man. These points include 'married a 6-year-old,' 'slave owner & dealer' and '13 wives, 11 at one time'."
The entire six points are:
The entire six points are:
Wednesday, March 08, 2017
A Double Standard?
Muslims held to double standard in cases of faith-based violence -- "Three-quarters (75 percent) of the public say that self-described Christians who commit acts of violence in the name of Christianity aren’t really Christian, while half (50 percent) of the public say the same about people who claim to be Muslim and commit religiously-motivated violence."
Found this "double standard" article in the Baptist New Global feed. I don't think there's anything unexpected here. A poll taken in a country that is nominally Christian and of predominantly Christian heritage will normally expect (yes, know) that Christians who commit acts of violence are not following what they have been taught in churches. It is not unusual then that they would question their Christian faith. On the other hand, the same folks, generally, don't know or understand as much about what is taught in mosques and have at least heard that some do support violence against "infidels."
Found this "double standard" article in the Baptist New Global feed. I don't think there's anything unexpected here. A poll taken in a country that is nominally Christian and of predominantly Christian heritage will normally expect (yes, know) that Christians who commit acts of violence are not following what they have been taught in churches. It is not unusual then that they would question their Christian faith. On the other hand, the same folks, generally, don't know or understand as much about what is taught in mosques and have at least heard that some do support violence against "infidels."
Thursday, February 16, 2017
Sharia Law
"Most Muslims are not ruled by and do not condone Sharia law." -- Ron Hurst, "On Prejudice and Bigotry," Nacogdoches Daily Sentinel, 14 February 2017, p. 4a
In his letter to the editor of the newspaper Mr. Hurst may have intended to limit his statement to Muslims in the U. S., but he did not say that. The answer nevertheless is somewhat complicated. First, what is Sharia? According to Dictionary.com, Sharia broadly is Islamic law, "seen as deriving from the Koran, hadith, ijma, and qiyas." As such, there is not one Sharia law as many Americans may tend to think, but it varies with Muslim sects and their interpretations of their faith documents.
According to Tolerance.Org, "Currently, 35 countries incorporate Sharia into their civil, common or customary law. The diverse manner in which these countries apply Sharia to daily life highlights how Sharia is neither static nor rigid but instead a reflection on how different communities interpret it."
According to Professor Abdullahi Ahmed An-Nai’m at Muslims for Progressive Values, "Many Islamic countries believe they are following Shari’a in family law matters, but Shari’a is not a legal system.
Based on this and other reading my conclusion is that Mr. Hurst's statement that "Most Muslims are not ruled by and do not condone Sharia law" is incorrect -- but many others have an incorrect vision of one monolithic "Sharia law" that governs all Muslims.
In his letter to the editor of the newspaper Mr. Hurst may have intended to limit his statement to Muslims in the U. S., but he did not say that. The answer nevertheless is somewhat complicated. First, what is Sharia? According to Dictionary.com, Sharia broadly is Islamic law, "seen as deriving from the Koran, hadith, ijma, and qiyas." As such, there is not one Sharia law as many Americans may tend to think, but it varies with Muslim sects and their interpretations of their faith documents.
According to Tolerance.Org, "Currently, 35 countries incorporate Sharia into their civil, common or customary law. The diverse manner in which these countries apply Sharia to daily life highlights how Sharia is neither static nor rigid but instead a reflection on how different communities interpret it."
According to Professor Abdullahi Ahmed An-Nai’m at Muslims for Progressive Values, "Many Islamic countries believe they are following Shari’a in family law matters, but Shari’a is not a legal system.
Based on this and other reading my conclusion is that Mr. Hurst's statement that "Most Muslims are not ruled by and do not condone Sharia law" is incorrect -- but many others have an incorrect vision of one monolithic "Sharia law" that governs all Muslims.
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Koran is Misunderstood?
In Quran Is Not for Muslims, Mike Ghouse traces much of the "misunderstanding" of Islam to the mistranslation of the Koran/Quran, some of which he says was done purposely. He writes, "It may be worth your while to see the list of the mistranslated verses and how the fear mongers in the market have capitalized on those. The best way to understand Quran is to remember, 'If it is not about justice, mercy and creating harmony', then the translation is wrong. Go back and read it several times, three verse before the 'wrongfully maligned' verse and three afterwards, and read at least three to four translations."
But he goes on to say that the "Quran in Arabic is precisely same and well preserved, but its translation and interpretations are not." So this IS NOT just a misunderstanding of mistranslations. Just like other religions, there are different viewpoints as to the meaning of their sacred scriptures. And it seems to me that a lot of Arabic readers have the most violent interpretations of it.
But he goes on to say that the "Quran in Arabic is precisely same and well preserved, but its translation and interpretations are not." So this IS NOT just a misunderstanding of mistranslations. Just like other religions, there are different viewpoints as to the meaning of their sacred scriptures. And it seems to me that a lot of Arabic readers have the most violent interpretations of it.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Competing truths
"Orthodox, Biblical Christianity assumes the existence of truth. Truth implies the existence of error, and mutually exclusive claims of truth cannot both be correct." -- Ergun and Emir Caner in Unveiling Islam
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Riding the camel again
In an earlier post, I introduced you all to something of which I recently heard -- the "Camel" method of evangelism. I found a link to the booklet/tract Camel Tracks...Discover the Camel's Secret in a comment made by Wes Kenney on Grace and Truth to You. I'm going to discuss some points from the "Camel Tracks" booklet. I've chosen it because it is available online for all to read. I know I have a varied readership, and this is somewhat Southern Baptist specific. I hope it won't be too irrelevant to most of you.
First, I want to address a few items I view as red herrings.
1. The use of the name "Allah" for God when speaking/writing in Arabic. Some people may object to this, but (as far as I can tell) for most people this is a non-issue related to a language in which "Allah" means "God" or "supreme being" generically.
2. Mentioning the words of a Greek poet or Cretian prophet, as did Paul. Again, possibly there are some people who object to even mentioning the Koran when talking to a Muslim. That is not my objection. Really, I don't think anybody objects to a statement like "even the Koran says such and such about Jesus." [BTW, has anyone taken the time to notice that Titus 1:12,13 is closer to an insult than a bridge to evangelization?]
3. Americanizing the gospel. I don't doubt that there are some people who wish to export Westernization and Americanization with the Christian gospel. T. P. Crawford warned about this exported western culturization back in the 1800s, and I think he was correct. To oppose the "Camel Method" of evangelism is not equivalent to desiring to export "Western Christianity" to all points of the world.
Now I will refer to specific things about and/or mentioned in Camel Tracks...Discover the Camel's Secret by Kevin Greeson.
1. This booklet is written as if by one who converted from Islam to Christianity. Is Greeson, "a church planter, coach and trainer with the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention", a former Muslim? I don't know, but I doubt it.* Note, though, on p. 18 Greeson says this was "recreated from the experiences of numerous Pakka Muslims..."
2. Greeson expresses gratitude to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia and others for financing the translation of the Koran from Arabic into the languages or the world (p. 1). I personally can't get to a point of gratitude for someone increasing the readership of a false holy book. BUT, I do understand the point. Muslims who cannot read the Koran in their own language must rely on an interpeter rather than interpreting and understanding it themselves. The interpreter on many points could be far more radical than the book itself.
3. Greeson uses "Allah" for God throughout the tract/booklet. This tract is not in Arabic, where "Allah" is the word for God. It is in English. But the words of the tract are directed to Muslim readers, who would understand "Allah" as supreme being (but who would also understand "Allah" as the god of Mohammed and who gave the Koran). The BIG problem I have with this is not the use of the word "Allah", but rather that I cannot see that Kevin Greeson anywhere makes any distinction that God/Allah/Jehovah of the Christians and god/Allah of the Muslims is not the same God/god.** [Note: this should not be confused with red herring #1]
4. In my opinion, the booklet sends a mixed message about Islam, Allah, Muslims, and Mohammed. For example, on page 2, Greeson exhorts, "Do not miss out on Allah's message. Do not rely on someone else to tell you the message of Allah. Instead, find a Qur'an translated into your own language and together let's discover in it a treasure that will change your life." Now I think I can understand that Greeson really only wants the reader to understand the part of Allah's message that he discusses in the tract. But there is an implication that the Koran is Allah's message. Where does he make it clear that all of the Koran is not Allah's message?
5. Further, Greeson clearly abstains from calling Isa's (Jesus') converts Christians. Rather they are "Pakka Muslims" -- "true" Muslims or "complete" Muslims (p. 4). This implies that the faith of Mohammed and the Koran just needs to be clearly understood (rather than rejected). Muslim means one who surrenders/submits (to God), and Islam means surrender or submission. Certainly a convert to Jesus Christ ought to be one who submits to God. "Camel Tracks" says that "According to the Qur'an (Koran), the followers of Isa (Jesus) are Muslims!" (p. 13). Yes, we can justify this by saying that Jesus followers are 'those who surrender' (Muslims). But are we (and the Muslim reader of this tract) really to believe that is what the Koran means when it says that?? More likely it means that Muslims in the normal sense believe they are the true followers of Isa (as opposed to Christians being the true followers). Also notice on page 15 Greeson asks the reader to think "about the Muslim festival of korban." When he uses "Muslim" there, surely he means in the "normal" sense. This tract freely obscures the line between Christianity and Islam.
6. Strangely -- to me at least -- when Kevin Greeson refers to the Prophet Mohammed, he often writes, "the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him..." (e.g. pp. 4, 11) Now why would a preacher of the way of the Nazarene proclaim a benediction upon a false prophet? I can't think of a good reason. I'm sure someone is poised with a cultural explanation. But really?
7. "A cow with only one leg cannot stand, but when he stands on all four legs, he is strong. A 'Pakka Muslim' read all of the Kitabs." (p. 9) In context of discussing Islam's four holy Kitabs (books; Taurat/Torah, Zabur/Writings, Injil/Gospels, & the Koran), Kevin Greeson gives us this illustration. I understand he wants to steer the Muslim back to the writings that precede the Koran, but in the end this attempt actually says the Complete Muslim needs all four of the Kitabs -- which includes the Koran -- to be strong. Paul said the inspired Scriptures are sufficient.
The seven points listed above are drawn from "Camel Tracks" to illustrate why I believe that at worst it comprises a pattern of deception, and at best exhibits a fear to clarify the claims of Christ. While there may be some passages in the Koran that are compatible with Biblical teaching, it is also true that most of its material is not. Further, the religion of Islam holds that Judaism and Christianity (and their writings) distort the message of the God of Abraham and His prophets. Muslims do believe that Jesus was a prophet. They also believe that He was just a man and not the son of God.
Finally, that brings me to a couple of related points. First, despite the tracts' "Islamic bridges" to the world's Muslims, in the end the concluding paragraph sounds a lot like trite Western easy evangelism that downplays repentance and faith in favor of a suggested prayer.*** Second, the whole idea seems to place salvation in a method. Oh, yes, I realize not directly so (and perhaps not deliberately). But I think we have bought into "how-to-ism" and some kind of idea of "methodology conversion" -- we don't make converts because we don't use the right methodology; we will make converts if we use the right methodology (and this very generally so; not just in the case of the "Camel Method"). On Bart Barber's Of Muslims and Mohammed, Les Puryear cautions: "We need to confess and repent of our arrogance and pride and turning away from trusting fully in the God of the Bible and His ability to reach those whom He has sovereignly elected before time began. Methods and strategies will not save one lost soul."
* according to the book description at Amazon.com
** Of course, this is a little problematic, in that Jews, Christians and Muslims all claim "the God of Abraham". I have up to this point, though, understood that most Christians do not believe that the God who inspired the Old and New Testaments called Mohammed to be His prophet or gave the Koran as His words.
*** To be fair, there is no "repeat after me" prayer involved. But the tract suggests the prayer and its contents generally.
**** In The Heart of a Baptist, Malcolm Yarnell says the "Camel" method encourages new Christians "to hide their faith, continue attending mosque or temple, and otherwise act like Muslims or Hindus. Ralph Winter and his U. S. Center for World Mission apparently consider baptism a Western rather than a biblical activity." [p. 11 online]
First, I want to address a few items I view as red herrings.
1. The use of the name "Allah" for God when speaking/writing in Arabic. Some people may object to this, but (as far as I can tell) for most people this is a non-issue related to a language in which "Allah" means "God" or "supreme being" generically.
2. Mentioning the words of a Greek poet or Cretian prophet, as did Paul. Again, possibly there are some people who object to even mentioning the Koran when talking to a Muslim. That is not my objection. Really, I don't think anybody objects to a statement like "even the Koran says such and such about Jesus." [BTW, has anyone taken the time to notice that Titus 1:12,13 is closer to an insult than a bridge to evangelization?]
3. Americanizing the gospel. I don't doubt that there are some people who wish to export Westernization and Americanization with the Christian gospel. T. P. Crawford warned about this exported western culturization back in the 1800s, and I think he was correct. To oppose the "Camel Method" of evangelism is not equivalent to desiring to export "Western Christianity" to all points of the world.
Now I will refer to specific things about and/or mentioned in Camel Tracks...Discover the Camel's Secret by Kevin Greeson.
1. This booklet is written as if by one who converted from Islam to Christianity. Is Greeson, "a church planter, coach and trainer with the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention", a former Muslim? I don't know, but I doubt it.* Note, though, on p. 18 Greeson says this was "recreated from the experiences of numerous Pakka Muslims..."
2. Greeson expresses gratitude to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia and others for financing the translation of the Koran from Arabic into the languages or the world (p. 1). I personally can't get to a point of gratitude for someone increasing the readership of a false holy book. BUT, I do understand the point. Muslims who cannot read the Koran in their own language must rely on an interpeter rather than interpreting and understanding it themselves. The interpreter on many points could be far more radical than the book itself.
3. Greeson uses "Allah" for God throughout the tract/booklet. This tract is not in Arabic, where "Allah" is the word for God. It is in English. But the words of the tract are directed to Muslim readers, who would understand "Allah" as supreme being (but who would also understand "Allah" as the god of Mohammed and who gave the Koran). The BIG problem I have with this is not the use of the word "Allah", but rather that I cannot see that Kevin Greeson anywhere makes any distinction that God/Allah/Jehovah of the Christians and god/Allah of the Muslims is not the same God/god.** [Note: this should not be confused with red herring #1]
4. In my opinion, the booklet sends a mixed message about Islam, Allah, Muslims, and Mohammed. For example, on page 2, Greeson exhorts, "Do not miss out on Allah's message. Do not rely on someone else to tell you the message of Allah. Instead, find a Qur'an translated into your own language and together let's discover in it a treasure that will change your life." Now I think I can understand that Greeson really only wants the reader to understand the part of Allah's message that he discusses in the tract. But there is an implication that the Koran is Allah's message. Where does he make it clear that all of the Koran is not Allah's message?
5. Further, Greeson clearly abstains from calling Isa's (Jesus') converts Christians. Rather they are "Pakka Muslims" -- "true" Muslims or "complete" Muslims (p. 4). This implies that the faith of Mohammed and the Koran just needs to be clearly understood (rather than rejected). Muslim means one who surrenders/submits (to God), and Islam means surrender or submission. Certainly a convert to Jesus Christ ought to be one who submits to God. "Camel Tracks" says that "According to the Qur'an (Koran), the followers of Isa (Jesus) are Muslims!" (p. 13). Yes, we can justify this by saying that Jesus followers are 'those who surrender' (Muslims). But are we (and the Muslim reader of this tract) really to believe that is what the Koran means when it says that?? More likely it means that Muslims in the normal sense believe they are the true followers of Isa (as opposed to Christians being the true followers). Also notice on page 15 Greeson asks the reader to think "about the Muslim festival of korban." When he uses "Muslim" there, surely he means in the "normal" sense. This tract freely obscures the line between Christianity and Islam.
6. Strangely -- to me at least -- when Kevin Greeson refers to the Prophet Mohammed, he often writes, "the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him..." (e.g. pp. 4, 11) Now why would a preacher of the way of the Nazarene proclaim a benediction upon a false prophet? I can't think of a good reason. I'm sure someone is poised with a cultural explanation. But really?
7. "A cow with only one leg cannot stand, but when he stands on all four legs, he is strong. A 'Pakka Muslim' read all of the Kitabs." (p. 9) In context of discussing Islam's four holy Kitabs (books; Taurat/Torah, Zabur/Writings, Injil/Gospels, & the Koran), Kevin Greeson gives us this illustration. I understand he wants to steer the Muslim back to the writings that precede the Koran, but in the end this attempt actually says the Complete Muslim needs all four of the Kitabs -- which includes the Koran -- to be strong. Paul said the inspired Scriptures are sufficient.
The seven points listed above are drawn from "Camel Tracks" to illustrate why I believe that at worst it comprises a pattern of deception, and at best exhibits a fear to clarify the claims of Christ. While there may be some passages in the Koran that are compatible with Biblical teaching, it is also true that most of its material is not. Further, the religion of Islam holds that Judaism and Christianity (and their writings) distort the message of the God of Abraham and His prophets. Muslims do believe that Jesus was a prophet. They also believe that He was just a man and not the son of God.
Finally, that brings me to a couple of related points. First, despite the tracts' "Islamic bridges" to the world's Muslims, in the end the concluding paragraph sounds a lot like trite Western easy evangelism that downplays repentance and faith in favor of a suggested prayer.*** Second, the whole idea seems to place salvation in a method. Oh, yes, I realize not directly so (and perhaps not deliberately). But I think we have bought into "how-to-ism" and some kind of idea of "methodology conversion" -- we don't make converts because we don't use the right methodology; we will make converts if we use the right methodology (and this very generally so; not just in the case of the "Camel Method"). On Bart Barber's Of Muslims and Mohammed, Les Puryear cautions: "We need to confess and repent of our arrogance and pride and turning away from trusting fully in the God of the Bible and His ability to reach those whom He has sovereignly elected before time began. Methods and strategies will not save one lost soul."
* according to the book description at Amazon.com
** Of course, this is a little problematic, in that Jews, Christians and Muslims all claim "the God of Abraham". I have up to this point, though, understood that most Christians do not believe that the God who inspired the Old and New Testaments called Mohammed to be His prophet or gave the Koran as His words.
*** To be fair, there is no "repeat after me" prayer involved. But the tract suggests the prayer and its contents generally.
**** In The Heart of a Baptist, Malcolm Yarnell says the "Camel" method encourages new Christians "to hide their faith, continue attending mosque or temple, and otherwise act like Muslims or Hindus. Ralph Winter and his U. S. Center for World Mission apparently consider baptism a Western rather than a biblical activity." [p. 11 online]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)